BJP MP Nishikant Dubey sent a legal response expressing regret to Samajwadi Party Lawyers' Wing President KK Pal following a defamation notice.
The Samajwadi Party claims Dubey issued an unconditional apology and is demanding a direct public apology to Akhilesh Yadav.
Nishikant Dubey rejected the SP's claims, stating his reply was a gesture of public decorum to avoid litigation rather than an admission of defamation.
BJP MP Nishikant Dubey has tendered a legal response expressing regret to Samajwadi Party chief Akhilesh Yadav's counsel, sparking a fierce dispute over the nature of the reply. The Samajwadi Party stated the response was an unconditional apology, while Dubey maintained he only sought to avoid litigation.
The confrontation originated from a social media post where Dubey linked the SP chief to Ramashankar, alias Tinnu Yadav, an accused in the Ram Janmabhoomi Temple donation theft case. The dispute has rapidly snowballed into a high-profile political confrontation, involving legal notices, police complaints and sharp exchanges between the ruling BJP and the opposition SP.
"Wasn't Tinnu talking to Tipu?" Dubey’s contentious social media post said.
The Legal Battle Escalates
The legal actions followed allegations linking Akhilesh Yadav to the Ram Temple donation theft accused. Samajwadi Party representatives sent a legal defamation notice to Dubey on July 7, 2026 with Krishna Kanhaiya (KK) Pal, President of the SP's Lawyers' Wing, issuing the notice demanding a public apology within two weeks.
The legal notice warned the MP of civil and criminal proceedings under Section 356 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita as
Party members filed multiple police complaints seeking FIRs against Dubey on the same day.
SP National Spokesperson Fakhrul Hasan Chand said Dubey unconditionally apologised to Pal in response to the defamation notice. Chand demanded that Dubey must now issue a direct apology to Akhilesh Yadav.
The SP leadership asserted that the apology was made to Samajwadi Adhivakta Sabha National President K.K. Pal.
However, Dubey rejected the claims, stating his reply was only meant to convey regret in order to bypass needless legal battles and preserve public decency, rather than serving as an apology to Yadav, NDTV reported. He maintained that the response was a gesture of public decorum and did not constitute an admission of defamation.
Temple Donation Theft Case
Ramashankar, alias Tinnu Yadav, faces charges under multiple BNS sections, including 306, 316(5), 317(4), 317(5), 61 and 3(5). He also faces charges under Section 13(1)(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
The Special Investigation Team alleges Tinnu Yadav possessed unapproved control over the keys to the donation boxes. He allegedly helped a family member join the cash-counting group to embezzle Ram Janmabhoomi Temple funds.
An Ayodhya special court extended Tinnu Yadav's judicial custody until July 27, 2026, with a decision regarding his police remand pending for July 14, 2026.
The Supreme Court of India intervened on July 13, 2026, directing the state's SIT to file a document detailing the investigation's advancement and team makeup.
